Indeed, that may be the point, that if no one ever brings a challenge against it, then there would be no reason for anyone to look at it, whether or not it is constitutionally consistent with the charter.
What we're doing here, however, is creating a new provision. As we're looking at these new provisions, I guess we look at them in light of the charter requirements and provide advice from that perspective, as a new provision.
We were looking at it in light of the potential--as we understood the committee's recommendation--for guarding against fraud. Yes, clause 110 does specify that the uses to which that list may be put--not all of those uses, as you indicated--are for the prevention of fraud. There are many uses to which those candidates put that registry information. Indeed, if the intention of the committee were to provide birthdate information in order for the candidates to be able to target youth or target the elderly, then that would be a different objective, and one would have to examine the charter argument against that, and whether it would be legitimate to do that.
With respect to fraud, however, I guess it was our conclusion that the objective of preventing fraud, with the minimum amount of invasion necessary, would be met by using this at the polling clerk stage. If there were a different objective, such as using the information for a different purpose, then we would have to look at whether or not that was a reasonable infringement on the expectation of privacy in that context which is different from what we were looking at here. There is a slight nuance of difference between the two in how we were looking at it.